Podcasts about plaintiffs

Traditionally, litigators seeking to understand an individual's or organization's devices - specifically, how they store, access, manage, and delete information - have either asked a deponent to testify from memory or arranged for a costly forensic inspection instead. In this episode, Jim spotlights a fantastic middle ground: requiring a deponent (individual or 30(b)(6) rep) to bring their devices to the deposition and demonstrate their functions and programs or apps during a videotaped examination. This technique was just approved by a federal judge in a pending class action against the ride-sharing company Uber. It's one all litigators should be using. As Jim says in the episode, devices are where information now lives. Lawyers should be more aggressive in their pursuit of discovery related to devices an individual or entity owns and how they access, store, manage, and delete data.SHOW NOTESIN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION, No. 23-MD-03084-CRB (LJC), 2025 WL 1393216 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2025); See Joint Discovery Letter Brief on Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) deposition notice seeking device demonstration is Document 2957; Order Resolving Discovery Letter Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions is Document 2995.Section 9.43, Physical Demonstrations By Deponents, p. 357-359, in the book 10,000 Depositions Later - The Premier Litigation Guide For Superior Deposition Practice: A User's Guide and Handbook on Deposition Tips, Tactics and Strategies for Civil, Administrative and Arbitrative Litigation, 4th Edition, 615 pp., by Jim Garrity, Esq., available on Amazon and just about everywhere else books are sold.

SCOTUS spent two and a half hours hearing oral argument on Friday in the birthright-citizenship cases consolidated in Trump v. CASA—not about birthright citizenship, but about whether district courts should be issuing nationwide injunctions. Many justices, and commentators on both sides, have criticized nationwide injunctions as a judicial incursion into executive policymaking in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But will the Court use this case to impose limits?We discuss:Plaintiffs in this case include 22 states. Absent a nationwide injunction, half the country would be under a different rule of birthright citizenship until the case resolves.CJ Roberts suggested that, in true emergencies, the Court can resolve a case fast, in as little as a month. Does this cut for or against nationwide injunctions?What does the Court think about using Rule 23 class actions as a substitute vehicle for nationwide relief?Are we heading toward a “guidance-free” 5–4 non-decision?Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

John is joined by Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. They discuss the recent lawsuits challenging President Trump's sweeping use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA is a 1977 statute traditionally used to freeze assets or impose sanctions in wartime or against adversaries. Until now, IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs, and does not mention the word "tariff." Multiple lawsuits challenging the tariffs have been filed in various courts, including several U.S. district courts and the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT, a court traditionally deferential to presidential authority over trade, is moving faster than other courts. It has already denied one preliminary injunction and scheduled initial arguments concerning standing and jurisdiction. The administration has moved to consolidate the challenges filed in district courts with those in the CIT. Plaintiffs range from state governments and Native American tribes to small businesses. The cases largely challenge the President's authority to issue the tariffs on four main grounds: (1) the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; (2) the President must have clear congressional authorization to increase the tariffs under the Supreme Court's “major questions” doctrine; (3) the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and nondelegation doctrine; and (4) the declared "emergencies" used to justify the tariffs—such as immigration or the trade deficit—are not genuine emergencies under the IEEPA. Even if the plaintiffs in these cases prevail, the administration could still reimpose tariffs under other delegated statutory authorities, although proceeding under those authorities will involve several procedural hurdles. Ultimately, Christopher believes that real change would require congressional action, which is unlikely in the short term, and that any rollback of tariffs may depend more on economic developments such as recession, stagflation or a collapse of the bond market than on court rulings.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Thabo Shole-Mashao, standing in for Clement Manyathela, speaks to Advocate Justin Erasmus, Chair of the Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association (Pipla), Mbekezeli Benjamin, Research and Advocacy Officer at Judges Matter, and McIntosh Polela, Spokesperson for the Road Accident Fund, about the Gauteng High Court's new mediation directive and its implications for civil cases. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live – The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) on 702 https://www.primediaplus.com/station/702 Find all the catch-up podcasts here https://www.primediaplus.com/702/the-clement-manyathela-show/audio-podcasts/the-clement-manyathela-show/ Subscribe to the 702 daily and weekly newsletters https://www.primediaplus.com/competitions/newsletter-subscription/  Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702   702 on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702  702 on Instagram: www.instagram.com/talkradio702  702 on X: www.x.com/Radio702  702 on YouTube: www.youtube.com/@radio702  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: “Law Day” is BornOn this day in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a proclamation that did more than just slap a new label on the calendar—it attempted to reframe the ideological narrative of the Cold War itself. With Presidential Proclamation 3221, Eisenhower officially designated May 1 as Law Day, a symbolic counterweight to May Day, the international workers' holiday long associated with labor movements, socialist solidarity, and, in the American imagination, the creeping specter of communism.What better way to combat revolutionary fervor than with a celebration of legal order?Pushed by the American Bar Association, Law Day wasn't just a feel-good civics moment; it was a strategic act of Cold War messaging. While the Soviet bloc paraded tanks through Red Square, the U.S. would parade its Constitution and wax poetic about the rule of law. In short, May Day was about the workers; Law Day was about the lawyers—and the system they claimed safeguarded liberty.But this wasn't just symbolic posturing. In 1961, Congress gave Law Day teeth by writing it into the U.S. Code (36 U.S.C. § 113), mandating that May 1 be observed with educational programs, bar association events, and a national reaffirmation of the “ideal of equality and justice under law.”Cynics might call it Constitution cosplay. Advocates call it civic literacy.Either way, Law Day has endured. Each year, the President issues a formal proclamation with a new theme—ranging from the judiciary's independence to access to justice. The ABA leads events, schools hold mock trials, and the legal community gets a rare day in the spotlight.In the grand tradition of American holidays, Law Day may not come with a day off or department store sales. But it's a reminder that the U.S. doesn't just celebrate its laws when it's convenient—it does so deliberately, and sometimes, geopolitically.A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 injunction meant to promote competition in its App Store by improperly restricting developers' payment options. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple defied her prior order in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. The judge referred Apple and its vice president of finance, Alex Roman, to federal prosecutors for a possible criminal contempt investigation, citing misleading testimony and willful noncompliance. She emphasized that Apple had treated the injunction as a negotiation rather than a binding mandate.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised the ruling as a win for developers and said Fortnite could return to the App Store soon. Apple had previously removed Epic's account after it allowed users to bypass Apple's in-app payment system. Despite the ruling, Apple maintains it made extensive efforts to comply while protecting its business model and plans to appeal. Epic argued that Apple continued to stifle competition by imposing a new 27% fee on external purchases and deterring users through warning messages. The judge rejected Apple's request to delay enforcement of her ruling and barred the company from interfering with developers' ability to communicate with users or imposing the new fee.US judge rules Apple violated order to reform App Store | ReutersPalestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University graduate student and longtime Vermont resident, was released from U.S. immigration custody after a judge ruled he could remain free while contesting his deportation. The case stems from the Trump administration's efforts to remove non-citizen students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, arguing such activism threatens U.S. foreign policy. Mahdawi, who was arrested during a citizenship interview, has not been charged with any crime. Judge Geoffrey Crawford found he posed no danger or flight risk and compared the political environment to McCarthy-era crackdowns on dissent.Crawford emphasized that Mahdawi's peaceful activism was protected by the First Amendment, even as a non-citizen. Mahdawi was greeted by supporters waving Palestinian flags as he denounced his detention and vowed not to be intimidated. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision, accusing Mahdawi of glorifying violence and supporting terrorism, although no evidence or charges of such conduct were presented in court.Members of Vermont's congressional delegation condemned the administration's actions as a violation of due process and free speech. Mahdawi's release was seen as a symbolic blow to broader efforts targeting pro-Palestinian foreign students, while others in similar situations remain jailed. Columbia University reaffirmed that legal protections apply to all residents, regardless of citizenship status.The relevant takeaway here revolves around the First Amendment rights of non-citizens – Judge Crawford's ruling affirmed that lawful non-citizens enjoy constitutional protections, including freedom of speech. This principle was central to Mahdawi's release, reinforcing the legal standard that political expression—even controversial or unpopular—is not grounds for detention or deportation.Palestinian student released on bail as he challenges deportation from US | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco is set to consider a critical legal question in ongoing copyright disputes involving artificial intelligence: whether Meta Platforms made "fair use" of copyrighted books when training its Llama language model. The case, brought by authors including Junot Díaz and Sarah Silverman, accuses Meta of using pirated copies of their work without permission or payment. Meta argues that its use was transformative, enabling Llama to perform diverse tasks like tutoring, translation, coding, and creative writing—without replicating or replacing the original works.The outcome could significantly impact similar lawsuits filed against other AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, all hinging on how courts interpret fair use in the context of AI training. Meta contends that its LLM's use of copyrighted material is covered under fair use because it generates new and transformative outputs, rather than duplicating the authors' content. Plaintiffs argue that this type of use violates copyright protections by extracting and repurposing the expressive value of their works for commercial AI systems.Technology firms warn that requiring licenses for such training could impede AI innovation and economic growth. Authors and content creators, on the other hand, view the unlicensed use as a threat to their financial and creative interests.Judge in Meta case weighs key question for AI copyright lawsuits | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appears sharply divided over whether states can prohibit religious charter schools from receiving public funding, in a case that could significantly alter the legal landscape for church-state separation in education. The case centers on Oklahoma's rejection of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School's bid to become the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that excluding religious schools constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, while liberal justices emphasized the importance of maintaining a secular public education system.Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a crucial swing vote. He questioned both sides, at times referencing prior rulings favoring religious institutions, but also signaling discomfort with the broader implications of authorizing religious charter schools. Justice Sotomayor raised hypothetical concerns about curriculum control, such as schools refusing to teach evolution or U.S. history topics like slavery.The case could affect charter school laws in up to 46 states and has implications for federal charter school funding, which mandates nonsectarian instruction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, increasing the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would leave Oklahoma's decision to block St. Isidore intact without setting a national precedent.This case hinges on the constitutional balance between prohibiting government endorsement of religion (Establishment Clause) and ensuring equal treatment of religious institutions (Free Exercise Clause). The justices' interpretations of these principles will guide whether public funds can support explicitly religious charter schools.Supreme Court Signals Divide on Religious Charter Schools - Bloomberg This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, Zinda Law Group CEO Jack Zinda and trial attorney Max Massey sit down for an honest conversation about the evolving realities of building a legal career and a sustainable law practice. From early job struggles to case strategy and managing the pressure of high-stakes litigation, Jack and Max trade stories, lessons, and the systems that help them keep improving. Whether you're managing your first caseload or leading a growing firm, this episode offers raw insights into the habits and mindsets that drive long-term success in personal injury law.Topics Covered:    Time Management & Work-Life Balance    Early Career Struggles & Career Growth    Diversification vs. Specialization    Dealing with Insurance Companies & Stowers Demands    Case Management Systems & Checklists    Assessing Case Value & Finding Recovery Sources    Lifelong Learning & Building a Support NetworkKey TakeawaysTime Management & Work-Life BalanceJack shares how segmenting time between work, family, and personal health helped him move from late-night burnout to better productivity. The conversation touches on prioritizing outcomes over hours and having the right support system.Early Career Struggles & Career GrowthMax opens up about his early challenges breaking into the field, including juggling multiple roles at a small firm. His journey underscores the importance of persistence, humility, and saying “yes” to opportunity.Diversification vs. SpecializationJack and Max reflect on experimenting with different practice areas early on — and how focusing on personal injury law brought clarity, consistency, and better results for clients.Dealing with Insurance Companies & Stowers DemandsThey break down the role of Stowers demands, how to verify information from adjusters, and why being proactive with documentation can make or break a claim.Case Management Systems & ChecklistsJack discusses treating every case like it's going to trial — and how detailed checklists, playbooks, and case reviews help create consistent outcomes.Assessing Case Value & Finding Recovery SourcesThe conversation includes insights on evaluating damages, controlling litigation costs, and navigating post-judgment collection when assets are limited.Lifelong Learning & Building a Support NetworkJack emphasizes the importance of mentorship, communities like TTLA, and staying curious — while still developing your own systems and principles over time.

Plaintiff attorney Jake Plattenberger used innovative trial techniques to overcome key excluded evidence in a tragic design defect case.

Plaintiff attorney Jake Plattenberger used innovative trial techniques to overcome key excluded evidence in a tragic design defect case. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

​Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdf

​Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A multi-bill effort led by attorney lawmakers in the Florida House of Representatives would roll-back many property insurance litigation reforms passed in the 2022-2023 legislative session.  Those reforms are reminiscent of the Workers' Compensation insurance reforms passed in the early 2000's that today has Florida boasting one of the lowest workers' comp rates in the country. Former Florida Deputy Insurance Commissioner Lisa Miller talks with Jon Shebel, former President & CEO of Associated Industries of Florida who led the workers' comp efforts.  Shebel draws direct comparisons between both reform efforts, argues that the proposed bills this session don't help consumers, and urges the legislature to listen to the data, as it did with workers' comp, that shows property insurance reforms are working to reduce homeowners insurance rates. Show Notes  (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-57-floridas-property-insurance-reforms-lessons-learned-from-workers-comp/) Jon Shebel recounts his role in Florida's 2003-2005 workers' compensation reforms, which capped attorney fees and streamlined claims, reducing rates from the highest to among the lowest in the U.S.  Florida's rates have dropped for the eighth consecutive year.“The biggest issue was litigation,” explained Shebel, on the reason for high workers' comp insurance rates.  “Plaintiff attorneys had free rein to convince injured workers to sue their employers, often leading to drawn-out cases that weren't necessarily in the workers' best interest.  There were cases where legal fees ended up costing more than the actual medical treatment and benefits for the injured worker.”Shebel said that very same incentive to sue contributed to Florida having the highest property insurance rates in the country between 2017 and 2023.  By 2021, Florida had 8% of all homeowners' claims in the U.S., yet 76% of all homeowners' claims lawsuits, according to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.   Likewise, a 2021 report titled Florida's P&C Insurance Market is Spiraling Toward Collapse revealed that “Of the $15 billion spent on litigated claims since 2015, only 8% was paid to policyholders.  Plaintiff attorneys got 71% with the remaining 21% spent by insurance companies on defense attorneys.” Shebel said Florida's property insurance reforms took a lesson from its workers' compensation insurance reforms 20 years earlier.“Our strategy in workers' comp was to address the root cause, plaintiff attorney involvement.  The main provisions included capping attorney fees, streamlining the claims process, and implementing stricter guidelines to prevent unnecessary lawsuits.  This not only reduced legal costs but also ensured that injured workers got the benefits they needed faster, without the delays that litigation often caused,” Shebel said.  All....  (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-57-floridas-property-insurance-reforms-lessons-learned-from-workers-comp/) 

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 223 features Charles Porges, Co-Founder and CEO of Novo, a legal tech company revolutionizing how plaintiff attorneys write medical chronologies and demands with artificial intelligence.  Novo's technology automates this process, empowering attorneys to draft high-quality documents in minutes — compared to days if done conventionally — ultimately saving valuable time and resources. Novo's AI-powered platform analyses and parses client documents to extract the most relevant information, reducing the burden of administrative tasks and freeing up attorneys to focus on strategic work. Novo is the personal injury settlement engine, reshaping the legal industry. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a plaintiff state a claim under ERISA's provision prohibiting a plan fiduciary from knowingly engaging in transactions with barred parties, solely by alleging that such a transaction took place?The case was decided on April 17, 2025.The Supreme Court held that To state a claim under Section 1106(a)(1)(C) of ERISA, a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements listed in that provision itself: that a plan fiduciary knowingly caused the plan to engage in a transaction involving goods, services, or facilities with a party in interest. The plaintiff is not required to plead that the transaction does not qualify for an exemption under Section 1108. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.Section 1106(a)(1)(C) establishes a clear, categorical prohibition on certain transactions between a pension plan and a party in interest. ERISA's structure places relevant exemptions, including those for reasonable and necessary services under Section 1108(b)(2)(A), in a separate statutory provision. Because those exemptions are laid out apart from the prohibitions and refer back to conduct already defined as unlawful, they function as affirmative defenses. As a result, plan fiduciaries who wish to invoke an exemption bear the burden of pleading and proving it. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, are not obliged to anticipate and refute every possible statutory or regulatory exemption.Reading exemptions as affirmative defenses also aligns with longstanding legal principles and avoids unworkable results. Requiring plaintiffs to negate all exemptions—especially when ERISA includes 21 statutory and hundreds of regulatory exemptions—would be impractical and unfair, particularly because the relevant facts are often in the defendant's possession. Procedural safeguards such as pleading requirements, discovery limits, and Rule 11 sanctions enable federal courts to deter and manage meritless litigation without shifting the pleading burden to plaintiffs. Consequently, only the elements in Section 1106(a)(1)(C) must be pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss.Justice Samuel Alito joined the majority opinion in full and authored a concurrence, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

It's been a week filled with breaking news and, as usual, investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell are on it, starting with the arrest of Grant Solomon's mother. Grant was 18 years old when he was killed outside of Nashville under mysterious circumstances (and with his father, former news anchor Aaron Solomon, nearby). In the years since his death, Grant's mother has fought for law enforcement to take another look at her son's case and sought for protection for her daughter, who accused Aaron of sexual abuse.  This past Friday, Angie Solomon was arrested and charged with attempting to hire a hitman to kill Aaron. Mandy and Liz break down what happened and why the accusations seem … off.  Plus, reporter Beth Braden learns that two new witnesses to Grant's death came forward last spring and what they had to say is interesting.  Also on the show, Jane Doe No. 1 stands up to Myrtle Beach Pastor John-Paul Miller's legal bullying.  Plus a shocking (overlooked?) piece of evidence in the Scott Spivey case … no really, it's wild.  Premium members get updates on Russell Laffitte's plea deal, Alex Murdaugh's latest attempts to manipulate dummies and what's up with Cory Fleming's appeal?  Let's dive in...

"I give trial lawyers a menu of options," Andrew Gould explains to hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders about his strategic approach as head of appellate at plaintiffs' firm Arnold & Itkin. After building their appellate practice from scratch following his years as a federal prosecutor, Andrew shares battle-tested techniques for navigating the trial lawyer relationship. His "eyes-wide-open" philosophy ensures transparent communication about strategic decisions and potential appellate consequences. When asked about electoral changes affecting appellate courts, Andrew replies: "What matters to me as an appellate lawyer are the law and the facts, and that's all it should be."Connect and Learn More☑️ Andrew Gould | LinkedIn☑️ Arnold & Itkin on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by

The last several days in Donald Trump's courtroom saga have been nothing short of remarkable. Just last year, after a landmark trial in New York, Trump became the first former president to be found guilty on criminal charges. The Manhattan jury convicted him on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records—charges stemming from the so-called “hush money” case, allegations that Trump covered up payments meant to influence the 2016 election. In a surprise decision, Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump on January 10, 2025, to an unconditional discharge, meaning Trump avoided jail time and probation. This outcome left supporters relieved but critics calling for more accountability, and, unsurprisingly, Trump used the moment to rally his political base, declaring vindication while vowing to continue his agenda.Meanwhile, in the federal courts, the legal tides shifted dramatically following Trump's return to the White House. The two high-profile federal criminal cases—one in Florida regarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and another in Washington D.C. related to accusations of obstruction and conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election—were both dismissed soon after his inauguration. In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper, dismissing the indictment. The Justice Department eventually dropped its appeal, effectively ending prosecution in both the classified documents and obstruction matters. In D.C., Judge Tanya Chutkan granted a government motion to dismiss, closing the chapter on one of the most watched legal battles tied to January 6th.However, the courtrooms have not emptied. In the past month, drama erupted over President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. The administration deported over 100 Venezuelan nationals, alleged gang members, to El Salvador, even as federal Judge James Boasberg ordered those planes turned back to the United States. Plaintiffs' lawyers argued Trump's team violated the judge's order, and Judge Boasberg himself accused the administration of “bad faith” for rushing removals before the courts could weigh in. Although the Supreme Court later allowed further deportations, citing jurisdictional issues, the episode inflamed debate about executive power and the rule of law.In parallel, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders, including directives to repeal regulations inconsistent with recent Supreme Court decisions, further polarizing the broader national conversation. Across the country, every courtroom appearance, filing, and headline ensures that the legal fights surrounding Donald Trump remain central to American life, driving both the news cycle and the ongoing political divide.

In this episode of The Effective Lawyer, Zinda Law Group CEO and founder Jack Zinda answers listener-submitted questions about building a law firm that runs on systems—not chaos.If you're constantly putting out fires, working long hours, and struggling to grow your firm, Jack offers practical strategies to bring clarity, structure, and intentional leadership to your practice. He walks through his weekly planning system, explains how to create an “ideal week,” and shares tools for better delegation and follow-up.Whether you're a solo attorney or managing a growing team, this episode offers real-world advice to help you take back control of your time and build a scalable firm.In This Episode:    How systems create efficiency, scalability, and work-life balance    Jack's weekly planning and review process    Building an “ideal week” for energy and productivity    Strategies for delegation and consistent follow-up    The value of weekly reflection for continuous improvementContact Jack Zinda:jack@zindalaw.com512-246-2224

Biracial, binational, queer human right activist Jason Jones began his lawsuit against Trinidad and Tobago's British colonial ban on same-gender sex in 2017. It was struck down in 2018, but an appeals court recently overturned that ruling and reinstated the law. Jones has one more chance to appeal that decision (interviewed by David Hunt). And in NewsWrap: transgender professional player Harriet Haynes sues the English Blackball Pool Federation to let her compete in the appropriate gender category, Redmond Sullivan is no longer a member of the Wagner College Iconic Fencing Club after a cisgender opponent refuses to play her, the Trump administration freezes Maine's federal education funding because of the state's trans-inclusive policies, queer-themed titles top the American Library Association's list of most banned books for the fourth consecutive year, the White House refuses to respond to journalists who use preferred pronouns, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Ret and David Hunt (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the April 14, 2025 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/

In this episode of From Lawyer to Employer, host Dan Schwartz welcomes back acclaimed plaintiff-side employment attorney Nina Pirrotti for a frank discussion about where employers often go wrong and how to do better. From inconsistently enforced policies and botched investigations to poorly trained supervisors and missteps in handling accommodations, Nina shares real-life cautionary tales and practical advice. Whether you represent employers or employees, this episode offers invaluable insights into preventing workplace liability before it starts.

Send us a textAfter much anticipation since we started this podcast, Stuart Colburn joins us for a special episode focused on Texas! Stuart, a shareholder at Downs & Stanford, P.C., has over 25 years of experience in workers' compensation. He shares his journey into our industry and expertly navigates the evolution of the Texas Workers' Compensation system since the 1980s. Throughout the conversation, he highlights the unique aspects that make Texas' approach distinctly different from those of other states.Stuart is board certified in Workers' Compensation Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and was the founder and first Chair of the State Bar of Texas Workers' Compensation Section. He co-authors the Texas Workers' Compensation Handbook published by LexisNexis and, as a certified lobbyist and frequent Division of Workers' Compensation conference representative, brings valuable policy perspective to the conversation.(Correction: Stuart mentions 2011 as the year Wikipedia and iTunes emerged; however, the correct year is 2001.)NOTE: Stuart shares a slide deck during this episode, which you can see in the video version on our YouTube channel. Resources mentioned in this episode:Texas Workers' Compensation Handbook 2025 EditionTexas Department of Insurance - Workers' Compensation Texas Subsequent Injury FundAmerican Medical Association (AMA) GuidesOfficial Disability Guidelines ODG by MCG National Comp ConferenceStuart Colburn bio¡Muchas Gracias! Thank you for listening. We would appreciate you sharing our podcast with your friends on social media. Find Yvonne and Rafael on Linked In or follow us on Twitter @deconstructcomp

OA1149 - Even as most of the Biglaw establishment falls to Trump's whims, lawyers from smaller firms are stepping up to do the most necessary work  on the most important issues of our times. We're here to tell you a little more about some of them! But first: The House passes the “No Rogue Rulings Act” and we rip into some fascist nonsense from MAGA legal “thinker” Mike Davis defending the President's absolute  right to call anyone a terrorist and send them to hell without a hearing. Also: DHS's “evidence”(?) in support of Mahmoud Kahlil's deportation,  SCOTUS ‘s surprise mid-episode ruling ordering the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a Salvadoran gulag, and more on the truly inspirational lawyers who are aggressively pushing these fights forward. In today's footnote: can you sue ChatGPT for “hallucinating” terrible stories about you? One heavily-armed Georgia talk show host is gunning to find out. The “No Rogue Rulings Act”  (HR 1526)  Amicus brief filed in Korematsu Center et al in Perkins Coie v. DOJ (4/9/25) DHS “evidence” filed in Mahmoud Kahlil's deportation proceedings (4/10/25) U.S. Supreme Court's order in Noem v. Abrego Garcia (04/10/2025) Plaintiff's complaint in Walters v OpenAI   “SCOTUS must stop leftist judges' lawless sabotage of Trump agenda | Fox News, Mike Davis (3/31/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

This episode examines a lawsuit against Sean Combs, Emilio Estefan, and others by Manzaro Joseph, alleging human trafficking and severe abuse. #Diddy #seancombs #courtneyburgess #exposedpodcastfiles #podcast #exposed #seancombs #rap #cassie  Timestamps 02:49 Allegations and Key Defendants06:05 The Plaintiff's Experience09:56 The Freak-Off Event16:52 Charges against “Diddy”21:51 New Developments in the Case25:55 Dismissals and Legal ChallengesLegal Note: This Case has not been criminally decided and all persons discussed in this podcast are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The criminal or civil charges expressed in this podcast are taken from public record and not the direct opinions of the host or producers of this podcast.   For collaborations, promotions, or appearances email Jim at:  https://www.exposedpodcastfiles@gmail.com  Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/exposed-scandalous-files-of-the-elite--6073723/support.

Searchlight New Mexico reporter Joshua Bowling sits down with Levi Monagle, an attorney who has represented survivors of Catholic sexual abuse. That includes about 140 cases exposed during the recent bankruptcy proceedings against the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. During that time, the church created a public list of 83 credibly accused priests — a list that Monagle says is woefully incomplete.Host: Lou DiVizioCorrespondent: Joshua BowlingGuest: Levi Monagle, Plaintiffs' Attorney For More Information: Undercount: why the Catholic church won't list many New Mexico priests who've been linked to sexual abuse – Searchlight New Mexico 

In this episode of The Effective Lawyer, Zinda Law Group CEO and founder, Jack Zinda, answers your listener questions. Discussed in this Episode:Self-managing law firmReferral pipelineClient referrals & reviews Saying no to bad casesManaging cash flowFinancial mistakesStaying motivatedBiggest regretSelf-Managing Law Firm: How do you create a self-managing law firm when you feel like you have to be involved in everything?Break down your tasks: What do you like doing vs. what you don't?Hand off the stuff you hate: Slowly delegate to employees, part-timers, or contractors.Start small: Hire an admin if you hate e-filing and paying bills.Figure out your worth: Put a dollar value on your time to see if you're doing tasks someone else should.Referral Pipeline: How do you get more referrals from other attorneys?Set goals: How many referrals do you want? Where do they currently come from?Go where the people are: Social media, email, speaking gigs, networking events.Have a plan: Measure your success before the actual referral.Networking is key: Go to events, introduce yourself, and get cards.Follow up: Email people you meet, invite them for lunch, and keep their info.Be consistent: Do this regularly to build a network.Client Referrals & Reviews: How do you get past clients to refer and leave positive reviews?Do good work: Seriously, be a good lawyer.Care about clients: It makes a huge difference.Get personal: Learn about their life and bring it up in conversations.First-name basis: Makes things feel friendly.Appointments only: Focus on their case without distractions.Sell your work: Tell them everything you've done on their case.Consistent contact: One-business-day rule for responses, 30-day updates.Remind them you exist: Social media, emails, cards.Ask for referrals: Don't be shy!Saying No to Bad Cases: How to avoid cases that drain resources?Set your standards: What's a "good" vs "bad" case for your firm?Value threshold: Have a minimum value for cases you take.Client behavior: Don't tolerate violent or abusive clients.Be upfront: Explain your process and investigation stage from the start.Refer out or reject: If a case isn't worth it, refer it to another firm or decline.Please don't blame the client: Frame it as the circumstances, not them.Managing Cash Flow: How do you handle cash flow when waiting for big settlements?Plan for delays: Build cash reserves (at least 2 months of expenses).Case volume: Have enough cases so you're not relying on one big one.Don't count your chickens: Don't spend money until it's in hand.Be aggressive in getting funds: Track and follow up on settlements.Financial Mistakes: What are the biggest money mistakes made by personal injury law firms?Shady marketing: Be careful of expensive companies that don't deliver.Expensive rent: Don't overspend on office space too soon.Hiring issues: Don't hire/fire too quickly, and don't underpay/overpay.No budget: Have a budget and understand your finances.Staying Motivated: How do you stay motivated with stressful cases/clients?Exercise: It helps clear your head!Take breaks: Get out of the office, do something fun.Take care of yourself: Don't absorb too much stress.Client management: Have strategies for demanding clients (homework, associates).Biggest Regret: What would Jack Zinda change about building his law firm?Focus on bigger cases sooner.Better vetting of hires (he had some crazy stories about bad hires!).You can reach Jack at:jack@zindalaw.com512-246-2224

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica examines a pivotal voting rights case before the Supreme Court concerning Louisiana's congressional district lines. The case touches on the conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Jessica reviews the legal arguments, reflects on past decisions like Shelby County, and explores the case's broader implications. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court Case: Jessica Levinson delves into a Supreme Court case concerning the Voting Rights Act, highlighting a challenge over Louisiana's congressional districting. The essential question is whether the state violated the Act by diluting voting power or violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using race excessively in district creation.Louisiana District Lines Controversy: After the census, Louisiana's district lines came under scrutiny for having only one majority minority district, leading to lawsuits. The state later redrew the map to include two majority minority districts, sparking a new suit from non-African American voters claiming the excessive use of race in drawing these lines.Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause: The tension between complying with the Voting Rights Act and the constraints of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is a major theme. The conversation touches on recent affirmative action cases, emphasizing the court's perspective that race should not be the predominant factor.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

Zinda Law Group CEO and founder Jack Zinda teams up again with seasoned trial lawyer Max Massey to answer more of your top listener questions. This episode dives into key strategies for winning trials, building a successful law firm, and hiring the right legal talent. Whether you're a personal injury attorney, law firm owner, or aspiring trial lawyer, you'll find valuable, actionable insights in this episode.  Winning a Big Trial - The Little Things That Matter :  Deep case preparation strategies  Monthly case review best practices  Identifying and preparing key witnesses  Effectively presenting non-economic damages Credibility of Non-Economic Witnesses:  Build layered witness credibility  Vet and prepare non-economic witnesses  Anticipate challenges during cross-examination  Hiring the Right Law Student or New Attorney :  Communication and client connection skills  Grit, competitiveness, and problem-solving ability  Research and legal reasoning for new attorneys Identifying Candidates with the “It” Factor :  How to recognize persistence and initiative  What to look for in cover letters and resumes  The importance of a strong work ethic  Scaling a Law Firm: From Solo to Success :  Building a financial and cash flow plan  Smart, strategic hiring decisions  Tracking key law firm metrics for growth  Work-Life Balance for Law Firm Leaders :  Time management and delegation strategies  Protecting your calendar with key meetings  Avoiding diminishing returns through work-life balance  Starting Your Own Law Firm: The “Why” and the How: Defining your motivation and vision  Building a solid financial and operational plan  Marketing and client acquisition strategies  

Jim Pattillo, Partner, Christian & Small joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about different types of plaintiff attorneys. Jim and Bill discuss what the reasons are for why there has been a degradation in civility between attorneys in recent years and what can be done about it. They share how important curating a reputation is for younger attorneys and the importance of communication. Bill and Jim identify several different plaintiff attorney types and how to manage them:  - The unqualified and incompetent plaintiff attorney - The jerk, bombastic plaintiff attorney - The too busy or lazy plaintiff attorney - The unethical plaintiff attorney - The unrealistic plaintiff attorney  Lastly, Jim shares his firm's philosophy on mentoring and training younger attorneys and his advice to early career attorneys on honing their craft. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/6Em

“Plaintiff would pay for her statement regarding Tupac.” In this chilling line from an assault case filed against Sean Diddy Combs, legal representatives for Ashley Parham, an alleged victim's of Sean Combs synopsize what is a shocking and brutal claim of sexual assault by Combs. Parham's story is deeply disturbing. It also provides telling insight into Comb's alleged network of trafficking and coercion…and seems to point to figures still hiding in the darkness. Follow Pop Mystery Pod on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok @popmysterypod Pop Mystery Pod is written and produced by Tess Barker @tesstifybarker. Produced by Tyler Hill.Theme song by Rick Wood @Rickw00d.Support independent pop journalism and join us on Patreon at Pop Mystery Pod. Get access to ad free episodes, bonus content, and polls about upcoming topics. patreon.com/PopMysteryPodFollow Tess's other podcasts Lady to Lady and Toxic wherever you get your pods. Make sure to leave us a review! And tell a friend about the show! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Governor Brian Kemp got what he (and his 'dark money' donors) sought: legislation to try and limit lawsuits and suppress massive jury verdicts (rare as they actually are, actually) . On today to discuss the kinds of impact this bill will have on everyday Georgians and particularly plaintiffs seeking damages, my good friend Nick Utley with Utley Law Firm took my call. ------Columnist Jay Bookman likened the Trump Administration's stripping away of federal agencies' workforce to a "giant game of Jenga," and honestly, it's the most appropriate framing I've read of this push to gut the U.S. government. ------Cautiously excited about the Georgia Department of Transportation is at the 'seeking input' stage of exploring an Atlanta-to-Savannah rail option. Before anyone gets too excited, though, this is like "step two" in a long list of steps before a shovel moves a patch of dirt, but still ...

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdf

Our roundup episodes summarize brand-new, deposition-related court rulings from around the country. We cover four new rulings in this episode on crucial issues:You can successfully oppose even otherwise taxable deposition costs, when an adversary prevails, by making these fairness-based argumentsFRCP 30(b)(6) topic lists must be proportionate to the case, as a court ruled when refusing to evaluate a list of 503 topicsThe rule of sequestration does not apply in federal civil cases and the majority of states, but you may succeed in getting a court to impose it if you can show one of these "plus" factorsIn-person depositions are still a thing, and should not be treated as unusual or requiring an extraordinary showingAs always, thanks for listening! And remember - these episodes are always free and contain no advertising. What's the catch? Only that we'd ask you to leave us a 5-star rating wherever you download your podcasts. Those ratings are deeply motivating to, and deeply appreciated by, our research and production staff. And be sure to check out the book on which this podcast is based - 10,000 Depositions Later: The Premier Litigation Guide for Superior Deposition Practice. Now in its 4th edition at 625 pages, available on Amazon and almost everywhere books are sold.SHOW NOTESLUV N' CARE v. LINDSEY LAURAIN, ET AL, No. CV 3:16-00777, 2025 WL 622334, at *8 (W.D. La. Feb. 26, 2025) (while courts cannot award costs not explicitly identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, courts do have discretion to deny award of otherwise recoverable costs where fairness or other considerations dictate)NATHEN W. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. REAL INNOVATION INC. et al., Defendant., No. 3:24-CV-05194-DGE, 2025 WL 606167, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2025) See 36-page notice (Case 3:24-cv-05194-DGE Document 51-1 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 36 (contains 503 actual questions, not topics)MARK WRIGHT-AHERN, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF CLERMONT, Defendant., No. 5:24-CV-173-MMH-PRL, 2025 WL 605059, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2025) (rule of sequestration does not apply to depositions, absent particularized showing of specific facts warranting the relief; the correct procedure for seeking to exclude a person from deposition is to seek a protective order); see also Order (from same case, awarding fees and explaining sequestration concept in depositions), CM/ECF Document No. 31, filed Jan. 31, 2025)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. The M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing Int'l Mar. Org. No. 1012531, Defendant., No. 23 CIV. 9304 (DEH), 2025 WL 754124, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (ordering witness to travel overseas to United States for in-person deposition, finding that while remote depositions are the new normal, there remains nothing unusual about insisting that a key witness appear in person)

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdf

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The legal battle over the Franklin Park renovation project of White Stadium goes to trial this week. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the $200 million project is illegal privatization of public trust land. The City of Boston and Boston Unity Soccer Partners (the defendants) have denied the privatization claims, saying the renovated stadium will be accessible to Boston Public School students. Dan discussed the lawsuit and what's at stake with Gayla Cawley, Renee Stacy Welch, she is a plaintiff, a Franklin Park Defender, a community advocate and a park abuttes, and Dot Fennel, a community advocate. Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!

A new constitutional crisis has broken out with the Trump Administration refusing to comply, again, with a Federal judge's orders. In a new filing, The Trump Administration just confessed to violating a Court Order to stop Trump's unconstitutional exercise of war powers to deport hundreds of people to El Salvador and Honduras in violation of a DC Chief Judge's order blocking that action, and the ACLU representing Plaintiffs have filed this morning their Notice to the Court outlining that the ways in which Trump has violated the Court's order, and demanding that the Court intervene and take action. Michael Popok breaks down what has happened in the last 48 hours, and what will happen next in court. To get our $297 when you buy a PAIR offer, including a free charger, head to https://ShopMDHearing.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Plaintiff Latroya Grayson, represented by her legal counsel, is respectfully requesting an extension of time to comply with the Court's January 6, 2025 Order in the case Grayson v. Combs, et al. (Case No. 1:24-cv-09857-JAV). The request specifically seeks additional time to amend the Plaintiff's complaint, citing the need for an extension through and including February 21, 2025.This request is made with due regard for the Court's timeline and procedural requirements, ensuring that Plaintiff has adequate opportunity to address the directives outlined in the Court's order. The Plaintiff's counsel seeks the Court's understanding and approval for the extension to ensure proper and thorough compliance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633985.7.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History: Warsaw Pact States Join NATOOn March 12, 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland became the first former Warsaw Pact countries to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This historic moment marked a significant shift in the post-Cold War security landscape, as these nations formally aligned with the Western military alliance nearly a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their accession symbolized a decisive break from their communist past and reinforced their commitment to democratic governance, rule of law, and collective defense.The expansion was not without controversy. Russia viewed NATO's eastward growth as a threat to its sphere of influence, deepening tensions that would continue into the 21st century. However, for the newly admitted countries, NATO membership provided critical security assurances against potential aggression, particularly given their historical experiences with Soviet domination. The accession process required extensive military and political reforms, ensuring that these nations met NATO's standards for democracy, civilian control of the military, and defense readiness.The inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland set the stage for further NATO enlargement, with additional Eastern European countries joining in subsequent years. It also reinforced NATO's role as a stabilizing force in Europe during a period of geopolitical uncertainty. The decision underscored the alliance's post-Cold War mission of promoting security and democracy beyond its original Western European membership. Today, this expansion remains a key milestone in the ongoing debate over NATO's role in global security and its relationship with Russia.The removal of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger has raised concerns about the politicization of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent agency that protects federal whistleblowers. Dellinger, who was dismissed by President Trump without explanation, initially challenged his firing but later withdrew his case after a federal appellate court sided with the administration. His removal highlights the administration's broader efforts to exert control over independent agencies, a move that legal experts warn could undermine their impartiality.During his tenure, Dellinger was an advocate for federal workers, helping reinstate over 5,000 Department of Agriculture employees who were improperly fired. His dismissal is expected to weaken the OSC's role in protecting workers from political retaliation. Legal scholars suggest that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the precedent set by his firing could give future presidents greater authority over independent agencies.The case also ties into a broader legal battle over presidential power, as courts are reviewing Trump's terminations of other agency officials, including members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While Dellinger had legal grounds to challenge his firing, he strategically chose not to pursue the case, allowing stronger challenges—such as that of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox—to take precedence.The legal debate is moving toward a potential Supreme Court review of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that limits the president's power to remove independent agency officials. If overturned, the ruling could significantly expand presidential authority over such agencies.Dellinger Exit Deepens OSC Politicization as Workers Lose AllyA U.S. judge will hold a hearing on Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil's challenge to his arrest by immigration authorities, a case that has sparked protests and political debate. Khalil, a Palestinian student and U.S. permanent resident, was arrested outside his university residence by Homeland Security agents. The Trump administration has accused him—without providing any evidence—of supporting Hamas, though Khalil has not been charged with any crime.Judge Jesse Furman has temporarily blocked Khalil's deportation and may order his release if his rights were violated. However, an immigration court—not Furman—would ultimately decide whether Khalil can be deported, a process that could take years. Khalil's lawyers argue that his arrest is political retaliation for his pro-Palestinian activism and violates his First Amendment rights. His detention in Louisiana has limited his legal access, and his wife, who is eight months pregnant, has spoken out against his treatment.The case raises broader legal questions about the intersection of free speech and immigration law, particularly as Trump has vowed to deport foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Khalil's arrest has triggered demonstrations and condemnation from Democratic lawmakers, who view it as political repression.Judge to hold hearing over Columbia student protester's challenge to arrest | ReutersA major real estate brokerage, Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, has asked a U.S. judge in Missouri to recuse himself from an antitrust lawsuit due to political donations made to his wife's campaign by the plaintiffs' lawyers. The lawsuit accuses brokerages of conspiring to inflate real estate commissions, and plaintiffs have already won significant settlements in related cases.Howard Hanna argues that the donations create an appearance of impropriety, requiring Judge Stephen Bough's recusal under ethics rules. Bough had previously disclosed the donations and offered to step down in an earlier case, but no party requested his removal at the time. Plaintiffs' lawyer Michael Ketchmark dismissed the recusal request as meritless and a delay tactic after Howard Hanna had lost key motions.Bough's courtroom previously hosted a landmark jury verdict in a related antitrust case, leading to over a billion dollars in settlements with brokerages and the National Association of Realtors. The judge's decision on whether to step aside could impact the trajectory of ongoing real estate antitrust litigation.US judge in brokerage antitrust case faces recusal bid over political donations | ReutersNew Jersey is poised to increase its angel investor tax credit (AITC) from 20% to 35% of investment costs, with a $35 million annual cap. Given the limited funds, ensuring the credit is effectively allocated is essential. However, the proposed bill includes “carbon footprint reduction technology” as an eligible category, which could allow carbon capture projects to qualify. Critics argue that carbon capture is neither emerging nor effective—it is costly, inefficient, and largely benefits fossil fuel companies by prolonging their operations rather than reducing emissions.Instead of funding speculative or ineffective technologies, the state should prioritize investments in proven decarbonization strategies like renewable energy, battery storage, and energy efficiency improvements. These sectors have demonstrated cost savings, emissions reductions, and job creation without the need for indefinite subsidies. Tightening the AITC eligibility criteria would prevent resources from being diverted to projects with questionable climate benefits.By refining its definition of eligible technologies, New Jersey can maximize the impact of its tax credit, ensuring funds support tangible climate and economic progress. States that design smart, targeted incentives will attract startups and clean energy investments, while those that fund vague or ineffective projects risk falling behind. As federal climate incentives remain uncertain, state policies will play a crucial role in shaping the future of clean energy investment.New Jersey Should Tighten Its Angel Investor Credit Eligibility This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Effective Lawyer, Jack Zinda dives into three key topics that impact law firm growth, efficiency, and leadership. Host Jack Zinda answers listener questions on the best books for personal and professional development, the role of AI in modern law practice, and what "superpower" sets successful law firms apart. Packed with insights from years of experience, this episode offers practical takeaways for lawyers looking to scale their firms and sharpen their skills.  Discussed in This Episode: Essential Books & Learning Resources for Lawyers The E-Myth by Michael Gerber – A foundational book for understanding law firm management and scaling. The Effective Executive by Peter Drucker – Key insights on productivity and decision-making. The 4-Hour Workweek by Tim Ferriss – Practical strategies on delegation and efficiency. Getting Things Done by David Allen – A framework for reducing stress and improving task management. David Ball on Damages – Trial strategy essentials. Ongoing CLEs and jurisdiction-specific training to stay ahead in legal practice. The importance of always reading a business book, an advocacy book, and a tactical resource to continuously improve. AI & Legal Tech: Streamlining Law Firm Operations The evolving role of AI in intake, case management, and marketing. Experimenting with AI-driven case summarization for improved efficiency. Using AI for content generation, legal research, and internal workflow automation. Best practices for AI integration, including compliance with ethical and data privacy regulations. Encouraging team-wide AI adoption to boost productivity and leverage emerging technologies. What Is a Law Firm's Superpower? The defining trait is empathy – The ability to deeply understand clients, opponents, and decision-makers. Understanding the real-life impact of injuries on clients beyond just legal damages. Empathizing with insurance adjusters and defense attorneys to negotiate more effectively. Recognizing what motivates judges and tailoring trial strategies accordingly. The power of emotional intelligence in case strategy, client relations, and firm culture.  Connect with Us: Have a question for Jack? jack@zindalaw.com 512-246-2224 

Hear that gurgling sound? That's the sound of the Trump DOJ, outmanned, outgunned, and underfunded courtesy of Elon Musk, losing regularly under the strain of 95 cases in the first 35 days of the Administration. Michael Popok reports on the DOJ telling an unsympathetic federal judge that they just couldn't get to his case because they don't have enough staff and what that means for Plaintiff's groups suing the Trump Administration at a record pace. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After building his career as an engineer at Facebook and as a venture capitalist at Lightspeed Venture Partners, Jay Madheswaran and his cofounders spotted an opportunity to deploy cutting-edge AI to transform what they saw as an underserved segment of the legal market, launching Eve, an AI platform purpose-built for plaintiffs' law firms. Eve has quickly gained traction, recently securing a $47 million Series A round led by Andreessen Horowitz, and boasting 800% year-over-year growth.  But what makes Eve's story particularly interesting is its mission to transform traditional plaintiffs' firms into what Madheswaran calls "AI-native law firms" – where technology does not just automate tasks but fundamentally changes how legal services are delivered, in part by encoding firms' unique knowledge and processes into intelligent systems. In today's episode, Madheswaran joins host Bob Ambrogi to explain his concept of AI-native law firms and describe how Eve's technology can help firms double or triple their caseloads by automating everything from case-intake analysis to document drafting, all while learning to work in each firm's unique voice and style.  He also discusses the challenges of building trust with lawyers around AI and his vision for increasingly specialized legal services in an AI-powered future.   Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.   Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). LEX Reception, Never miss a call, with expert answering service for Lawyers. Legalweek, March 24-27, New York Hilton Midtown. Register today at legalweekshow.com.    If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

In this episode of “The Diddy Saga” Jim Chapman brings you inside (5) of the most recent lawsuits filed against the music mougal and breaking news just released as it related to Sean Combs defense team.“The Diddy Saga” is an Exposed: Scandalous Files of the Elite Series Podcast.#Diddy #seancombs #courtneyburgess #exposedpodcastfiles #podcast #exposed #seancombs #rap #cassie  Timestamps02:02 New Disturbing Allegations from a Jane Doe04:37 New Lawsuit from a John Doe08:22 The Plaintiff's Descent into Manipulation21:10 The Struggle for Escape23:51 Rising Tensions and Legal Battles26:17 Another Victim's Shocking Encounter28:57 The Dark Reality of the Industry31:13 A Troubling History with Combs33:24 Recent Developments in Diddy's Legal Issues37:59 Lawyer's Withdrawal from the Defense TeamLegal Note: This Case has not been criminally decided and all persons discussed in this podcast are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The criminal or civil charges expressed in this podcast are taken from public record and not the direct opinions of the host or producers of this podcast.   For collaborations, promotions, or appearances email Jim at:  https://www.exposedpodcastfiles@gmail.com  Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/exposed-scandalous-files-of-the-elite--6073723/support.

Legal AF's Michael Popok provides urgent live briefing on late breaking events. Tonight, Popok examines MSNBC's firing of all of its diverse anchors, including Katie Phang and Joy Reid, to bend the knee to Trump; Federal Courts holding the line against Trump and Musk as an open MAGA rebellion has broken out internally against Musk; the hallowing out of American Values by Trump in his policies and laws, as Trump breaks the connection and breaches the social contract between US citizens and their government; an overview of the 92 cases and 34 injunctions and restraining orders against the Trump Administration as Plaintiffs groups like Attorneys General, public interest groups, and democratic lawyers, win at a 99% rate so far in courts, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support Our Sponsors: Rubbish: For 35% off your order, head to https://RubbishHome.com and use code LEGALAF VIIA: Try VIIA Hemp! https://viia.co/legalaf and use code LEGALAF! Naked Wines: Join the Naked Wines community and head to https://NakedWines.com/legalaf for 6 bottles of wine for JUST $39.99 with shipping included MD Hearing: To get our $297 when you buy a PAIR offer, including a free charger, head to https://ShopMDHearing.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How can attorneys integrate leadership, strategy, and branding to build a thriving firm? In this episode of The Game Changing Attorney Podcast, Michael Mogill sits down with Jay Kelley, managing partner of Elk + Elk, to explore how one of Ohio's largest personal injury firms has evolved and flourished. Jay shares his unconventional journey into law, drawing from an early love of persuasive speaking he discovered through acting, and how this unique background has shaped his approach to becoming a trial attorney. Here's what you'll learn: How transformative life experiences can shape your practice and lead you to a fulfilling legal career The importance of building a firm culture that is both collaborative and capable of handling serious, complex cases Why strategic brand building and community engagement are crucial for long-term success in the legal industry Law firm leaders who truly want to elevate their impact need to go beyond just winning cases — they need to transform their firms from the inside out. This isn't just about marketing strategies or business development — it's about embodying authenticity, perseverance, and a relentless commitment to growth. ---- Show Notes:  00:00 – Introduction 02:16 – Jay Kelley's Journey: From Prosecutor to Plaintiff's Attorney 05:55 – The Power of Listening in the Courtroom 07:35 – Finding Purpose in Medical Malpractice Cases 09:07 – Balancing Being a Trial Attorney and a Law Firm Business Leader 12:46 – Branding a Law Firm: Standing Out in a Competitive Market 17:45 – Community Involvement and Brand Recall Strategies 25:50 – The Difference Between Brand Recall and Credibility 31:52 – Transitioning a Law Firm's Leadership and Legacy 42:56 – What It Means to Be a Game-Changing Attorney ---- Links & Resources: The Abbey Theatre Arthur M. Elk David J. Elk Cincinnati Reds Columbus Blue Jackets Cleveland Browns USO Dr. Kirk Wakefield Siri John P. O'Neil ---- Listening to this episode but want to watch it? Check it out on Spotify.  Do you love this podcast and want to see more game changing content? Subscribe to our YouTube channel. ---- Past guests on The Game Changing Attorney Podcast include David Goggins, John Morgan, Alex Hormozi, Randi McGinn, Kim Scott, Chris Voss, Kevin O'Leary, Laura Wasser, John Maxwell, Mark Lanier, Robert Greene, and many more. ---- If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like: Episode 174 — Joey Coleman — Never Lose a Client Again: Creating Memorable Experiences to Gain an Advocate for Life Episode 137 — Camille Vasquez — Authenticity is the Advantage Episode 119 — Jo-Ná Williams — The Entrepreneurial Attorney: Achieving Freedom by Serving Others

SummaryIn part two of this Q&A series, Zinda Law Group CEO and founder Jack Zinda answers your questions about trial vs. Settlement, budgeting & legal myths.Discussed in this Episode:Trial vs. settlement strategyBudgeting for growthBiggest legal mythTrial vs. Settlement Strategy“How do you decide when to push for trial versus taking a strong settlement offer?” -  Most offers never leave the table, so don't be afraid that the money will be reduced if you choose to go to trial. Be realistic and ask yourself if the initial offer is as much or more than a jury would award to your client. Would that amount of money make a meaningful difference in your client's life? If going to trial is something the client wants, make sure to explain the risks involved and additional case expenses that can be incurred. Budgeting for Growth“What percentage of my revenue should be reinvested into marketing and operations?”  - “First, you have to know where you're going if you're going to get there.” Jack lays out how Zinda Law makes marketing decisions and how you can decide what's best for you. If you're unsure how to make the numbers work, don't hesitate to ask someone or hire a professional to lay the map out for you. Biggest Legal Myth“What's the biggest misconception people have about personal injury law?”  - “What we do is easy.” If it were easy, everyone would do it. That's what makes personal injury lawyers so important. “What does working with clients in a personal injury case mean?” Jack talks about psychodramas and their importance to understanding the complexities of your client's life. “How much money do personal injury lawyers make?” Just because you see large numbers on billboards doesn't mean that that money gets paid out. A plaintiff lawyer can get a large verdict, but no actual dollar value is exchanged if the defendant can't pay it. You can reach Jack at:jack@zindalaw.com512-246-2224

We discuss recent aviation accidents, explore potential litigation, and consider changes to the U.S. Air Traffic Control system. Guest Erin Applebaum returns as our guest for this episode. Erin is a Partner in the aviation practice of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, a New York law firm. She specializes in litigation for passengers who were injured or killed in general aviation accidents and commercial airline disasters. Erin previously joined us in Episode 831 Advocating for 737 MAX Crash Victims and Episode 777 Aviation Accident Litigation. We discuss the Delta Air Lines CRJ-900 regional jet crash at Toronto's Pearson Airport. Because this occurred the same day the episode was recorded, few verified facts were available. Erin also helps us consider the Washington National midair collision between an American Airlines regional jet and an Army Blackhawk helicopter. We look at the U.S. air traffic control system, including staffing needs, outdated systems, and alternatives such as privatization such as that used by other countries. Along the way, Erin explains litigation under the Montreal Convention and how aviation attorneys obtain clients. We look at the quality of communications between controllers and pilots, the types of altimeter types and implications for safety, traffic screens, the current status of the B737 MAX litigation, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We also have thoughts on how to respond when people outside the industry ask, “Is it safe to fly?” Erin has devoted her career to advocating for justice and fighting for the advancement of aviation safety. She serves on the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee for the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Boeing 737 MAX litigation. Erin is part of the legal team representing the 737 MAX crash victims in the federal criminal case against Boeing. Aviation News We used the following sources for our conversation. Note that some are behind a paywall and others require free registration. Black Hawk crew might not have heard crucial tower instruction, NTSB says Pilots got 100 collision warning at DCA From 1920s Thinking to Digital Autonomy: After 100 Years, It's Time To Rethink How Air Traffic Control Works US senators call for increased funding, staffing for air traffic control How Elon Musk Will Bring ATC Under Control, By Robert Poole, Reason Foundation. Victims' Families of Boeing Crash Ask New US Attorney General for Meeting on Criminal Plea Agreement Elon Musk Vows To Cut FAA's "Senseless" Supersonic Boom Noise Regulation Mentioned Hosts this Episode Max Flight, Rob Mark, our Main(e) Man Micah, and Max Trescott.

When asked about the Hare Krishnas, most people will conjure images of dancing, chanting people with colourful robes and joyful dispositions. Members of the general public, whom Hare Krishnas refer to as 'karmis', may have encountered devotees through their vegetarian food offerings at music festivals or city restaurants. Their anti-LGBTQI+ and patriarchal beliefs, as well as the darker aspects of their history – including horrifying stories of abuse, and even murders – come as a surprise to many.Full research sources listed here. You can support us on Patreon. Sarah Steel's debut book Do As I Say is available on audiobook now.Links:Srila Prabhupada's arrival in the USA — by Ramai Swami, 27 September 2021Authoritarian Culture and Child Abuse in ISKCON — by Nori J. Muster, Cultic Studies Review, 3(1), 2004Children of ISKCON vs. ISKCON complaint — Plaintiffs' original petition in the Dallas lawsuit, Surrealist.org, filed 25 October 2001How I Once Was a Hare Krishna… — by Christopher Fici, Medium, 7 January 2023Holy Cow, Swami — documentary by Jacob Young, 1996History — ISKCON Child Protection Office, accessed January 2025Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement: 1971-1986 — by E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein, ISKCON Communications Journal, Vol. 6, #1, June 1998Children of ISKCON vs. ISKCON Timeline — Surrealist.org (Nori Muster's website), accessed January 2025Tortured Souls — by Mark Donald, Dallas Observer, 6 December 2001Dial Om for Murder — by John Hubner & Lindsey Gruson, Rolling Stone, Issue 497, 1987Religion: Control Stressed at Krishna Children's School — by Eleanor Blau, The New York Times, 25 November 1973Why ISKCON Needs to be on Guard Against “Cultic Behavior” — by Anuttama Dasa, ISKCON News, 26 July 2024The Krishna Cult — by Paul Ford, Mad After Krishna, 1994 Subscribe and support the production of this independent podcast, and you can access early + ad-free episodes at https://plus.acast.com/s/lets-talk-about-sects. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When asked about the Hare Krishnas, most people will conjure images of dancing, chanting people with colourful robes and joyful dispositions. Members of the general public, whom Hare Krishnas refer to as 'karmis', may have encountered devotees through their vegetarian food offerings at music festivals or city restaurants. Their anti-LGBTQI+ and patriarchal beliefs, as well as the darker aspects of their history – including horrifying stories of abuse, and even murders – come as a surprise to many.Part 2 is already available to Patreon supporters, and will be released on the main feed on Wednesday 19 February. Full research sources listed here.Links:Srila Prabhupada's arrival in the USA — by Ramai Swami, 27 September 2021Authoritarian Culture and Child Abuse in ISKCON — by Nori J. Muster, Cultic Studies Review, 3(1), 2004Children of ISKCON vs. ISKCON complaint — Plaintiffs' original petition in the Dallas lawsuit, Surrealist.org, filed 25 October 2001How I Once Was a Hare Krishna… — by Christopher Fici, Medium, 7 January 2023Holy Cow, Swami — documentary by Jacob Young, 1996History — ISKCON Child Protection Office, accessed January 2025Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement: 1971-1986 — by E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein, ISKCON Communications Journal, Vol. 6, #1, June 1998Children of ISKCON vs. ISKCON Timeline — Surrealist.org (Nori Muster's website), accessed January 2025Tortured Souls — by Mark Donald, Dallas Observer, 6 December 2001Dial Om for Murder — by John Hubner & Lindsey Gruson, Rolling Stone, Issue 497, 1987Religion: Control Stressed at Krishna Children's School — by Eleanor Blau, The New York Times, 25 November 1973Why ISKCON Needs to be on Guard Against “Cultic Behavior” — by Anuttama Dasa, ISKCON News, 26 July 2024The Krishna Cult — by Paul Ford, Mad After Krishna, 1994 Subscribe and support the production of this independent podcast, and you can access early + ad-free episodes at https://plus.acast.com/s/lets-talk-about-sects. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Blocked and Reported, Jesse is joined by our furry friend Tracing Woodgrains/Jack Despain Zhou to discuss the rationalist trans murder cult. Plus, revisiting the DEI scandal at the FAA.zizians.infoEffective Altruism's Problems Go Beyond Sam Bankman-Fried - BloombergNet Negative – SinceriouslyGood Group and Pasek's Doom – SinceriouslyContainment Causes Suicidality | Mental EngineeringJay Leo Winterford (Jacob Ray Pekarek) Obituary - Estes Park, COin your dreamsMystery in Sonoma County after arrests of protesters in Guy Fawkes masks and robesA community alert about Ziz. Police investigations, violence, and… | by SefaShapiro | MediumJack LaSota Obituary (2022) - Fairbanks, AK - Daily News-MinerGWEN DANIELSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, CALIFORNIATwo Alleged Squatters Charged In Vallejo Death of Friend and Sword Attack on LandlordSuspects in killings of Vallejo witness, Vermont border patrol agent connected by marriage license, extreme ideologyChester Heights Murder: Pennsylvania State Police say Delaware County couple homicide was not 'random act of violence' - 6abc PhiladelphiaPLUM OF DISCORD — I Became a Full-time Internet Pest and May Not... This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.blockedandreported.org/subscribe

OA1120- This episode was first published on our sister show, Gavel Gavel, and has been made available at no charge for our wonderful Opening Arguments patrons! Folks, we and you deserve a little treat. And let me tell you, this is a treat. Mwuah! Chef's kiss. Here's a triple episode for ya! Rudy Giuliani is such a piece of shit that the last real lawyers he could find quit. And so, enter... some guy from Staten Island. He gave us, and the world, truly one of the stupidest, worst written legal documents in recorded history. And in such a serious case, as well! We spend the entirety of this recording digging into it. Come for the weird typos and endless sentences, stay for the lecture on the evils of liberal democracy and wildly unnecessary references to the judge's father!  Superstar public defender Liz Skeen joins us to draw from her past life as a NY litigator to provide the local and legal context for… whatever this is. “Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold Defendant in Civil Contempt and Impose Sanctions,” Ruby Freeman & Wanshae Moss v. Rudolph W. Giuliani (12/19/2024)(SDNY)(today's reading) Plaintiff's summary judgment brief (10/2/24) Plaintiffs' request for sanctions (10/29/24)   Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!